Email this article to a friend

de • growth

1. A decrease in the energy and raw material used by human economies, and a managed decline in GDP

2. The movement to bring about this decrease in an equitable, sustainable and democratic manner

An economic decline—isn’t that called a depression?

It’s true that economic contraction usually hits the poor the hardest. But, degrowthers contend, economic expansion doesn’t always help—just look at the United States, where most recent growth went straight to the rich.

A managed decline in total GDP, with less work and consumption and more time for community, leisure and political engagement, might lead to an overall healthier society. Many European countries, for instance, have smaller GDPs per capita than the United States, but more supportive welfare states and generally happier people.

Can’t we have sustainability and equity and also keep growing?

Many, even on the Left, believe we can—that automation, wealth redistribution and technological innovation will allow luxurious standards of living for all.

Degrowth advocates aren’t so sure. One paper suggests that, were everyone on the planet to consume at U.S. levels, it would take four Earths to sustain us all. While tech such as renewable energy can help, even a solar panel requires rare earths mining, and windmills pose a threat to wildlife.

We still need “growth” for solar panels though, right?

We do! Degrowth is a macro prescription for the entire economy of a country or the world. It doesn’t mean we can’t selectively invest in transit, healthcare, education or other crucial sectors. It also doesn’t mean the global poor must remain poor—it’s the affluent whose consumption needs to change. That’s why a recent gathering in Chicago called to “Degrow America First.”

How do you build a movement for shrinking?

The term degrowth comes from French ecosocialist André Gorz, and until recently was mainly used by European academics. Indigenous movements in Latin America, however, have provided perhaps the best model of a degrowth movement, resisting mining and deforestation projects and building cooperative economies outside the capitalist market.

Calls for degrowth are now entering the mainstream, in publications such as Foreign Policy and the Guardian. Degrowthers advocate policies such as a shorter work- week and the “right to repair”—requiring tech companies to let us fix our own devices rather than buy new ones. They fight airport and highway expansions, and plan “zero waste” cities where all discarded items are recycled, reused or composted. Ultimately, the fight against growth is a fight against capitalism—for a world of sharing and cooperation over property and profit.

Divide the economy into three sectors--hardware, software and wetware. (Nobel winner John Romer does this). If we want 'hardware' (including carbon-based energy, food supplies and such) to stabilize and/or shrink, we need the other two to grow towards infinity. 'High Design' is what curbs or reduces all the rest. Wetware, by the way, is the 'software' between your ears, rather that stored in a book, the cloud or other memory device.

Posted by Carl Davidson on 2019-01-05 08:26:29

You can take, grow the economy in two ways. We definitely need to grow the economy, grow up, as in mature, not grow bigger as in fatter.

So our economy does need to grow, grow up, become more mature and responsible, stop being so childish, with poor behaviour and screams of mine, mine, mine.Our economy needs to grow into a mature adult, that takes responsibility for it's actions and plans for a long term future, not just immediate self gratification as a child.So a mature economy would strive for renewable as they last out into the future, a mature economy would strive for GMO algae, as you could grow it in your own kitchen aquarium, an algae steak you peel and grill, a mature economy would strive to serve the majority and not the loud aggressive minority, a mature economy would set better goals, like striving to colonise the stars, rather than having sex as often as possible.Our economy needs to grow the hell UP.

Posted by rtb61 on 2018-12-29 00:47:49

We don't need negative growth. We need better, cleaner, more efficient, more automated production + a Universal Guaranteed Income. Learn Modern Money Theory. We already have the money.

Posted by AM on 2018-12-28 16:44:56

Keyword is "forcing." Any kid can write a polemic about how to save the world. It takes brutal people to enforce it. Experience teaches this, inexperience overlooks it. Studying history is essential before one can realistically make sweeping proposals for wide change. The kids who whip up stories here mean well, but in fact they use their desperate predictions of the end of the world as a brickbat to make demands. They are, historically speaking, totalitarians without power. They seek to create power by creating a new religion, but it remains to be seen if that will work out.~~~The historian Barbara Tuchman wrote about how humans react in a world turned upside down by climate change, war, economic and social upheaval in, "A Distant Mirror" (Knopf 1978) she observed: "What compounds the problem is that medieval society, while professing belief in renunciation of the life of the senses, did not renounce it in practice, and no part of it less so than the Church itself. Many tried, a few succeeded, but the generality of mankind is not made for renunciation. There never was a time when more attention was given to money and possessions than the 14th Century, and its concern with the flesh was the same as at any other time. Economic man and sensual man are not suppressible."

This holds true for all people in all times of history I have read: Ancient Greece & Rome, Manchu China, Imperial Russia, Europe over 2000 years, and certainly America today.

Posted by John Smith on 2018-12-23 12:33:55

This piece reminds me of college in the 70s. We'd coalesce over some term of art of social change (degrowth) like "Democracy for the economy!" then protest march with signs at, for instance, the President visiting U.N.H. during the primary. Protesting was sexy, and the real activity was the eyeballing of each other so we could make friends and feel good, peel off as pairs and get high and get it on. Youngsters are great at that, not so good at policy presentations, as we see here.

For myriad reasons this piece is very poor, but my worry is the majoritarian ideology upon which this slurry of non-ideas rests. In theory Martindale would convince a majority to accept his idea, then force everyone else to obey, with no respect for rule of law and enumerated rights. That is called a tyranny of the majority and it is the worse system of all systems in recorded human history. It is also known as mob rule. The immature liberal mind will not accept this cut, because the immature liberal mind believe itself to be of a higher moral order but this is an illusion.

Martindale's broad proposal is noble stuff: do better for everyone. However every demagogue tyrant who ever limped to a podium used social improvement as their crutch. Degrowth is clearly a tyrannical proposal for taking property rights, carefully lacking any mention of enforcement, but that would require a police state to accomplish. The details are overlooked, no ends tied, complete lack of respect for history and/or human nature. But I'd bet it gets Martindale laid if he explains it over wine and good music.

P.S. I am for what would amount to degrowth, but within the bounds of achievable human nature and within the wisdom taught us by great works of history. To do this one would incentivize (pay for) a decline in a very important property of human society not mentioned in this vapid essay: population.

Over-breeding is the desperate method by which all animals deal with survival survival threats, it is also what provides the capitalist with his cheap labor and endless consumers. Humans can control their own procreation and will voluntarily, if shown that it will provide a better life - no tyranny needed. Humans do not however control other people's property or desires. Only a tyrannical police state can take your property and tell you to like it because it's the greater good. We need to incentivize people to stop breeding like rats, stop handing capitalists more consumers and cheaper labor, and we will stop living like rats.

Posted by John Smith on 2018-12-23 11:38:06

The problem, as is somewhat addressed, is that these “prescriptives” almost always disproportionately impair the poor. It’s a Catch 22 proposition, and currently a lose-lose situation all around. Forcing poor people into further dire straits, while allowing the rich to escape in the process is just not acceptable.